In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Classifying Authentic Interpretations of Canon Law
  • John M. Huels (bio)

The canonical system recognizes several modes of interpretation of canon law. These are interpretations made by private persons (authors, practitioners, and others); the public ecclesiastical administration (church officials) by means of an administrative act; and judges in a judicial sentence (c. 16, §3). In addition, there is a special form of interpretation that officially and authoritatively resolves the meaning of a doubtful law. This is called "authentic interpretation" and may only be made by the legislator or one to whom he has entrusted the power to interpret the law authentically (c. 16 §1). The focus of this study is authentic interpretation given in the form of law (per modum legis), in particular, how to determine whether these interpretations should be classified as declarative, explanatory, extensive, or restrictive (c. 16 §2). This is not just an interesting intellectual exercise, but it has an important consequence for church practice. If an interpretation is merely declarative, it is retroactive, and in some cases its classification as declarative may have consequences for judging the validity or invalidity of acts (including marriages) which had been placed prior to the authentic interpretation.

Since the 1983 code took effect, twenty-nine authentic interpretations on various canons have been promulgated. Two decades ago, Lawrence Wrenn authored a small but enduringly influential book, Authentic Interpretations on the 1983 Code, in which he categorizes the twenty-five authentic interpretations promulgated between 1984 and 1991.1 After briefly analyzing [End Page 605] each authentic interpretation, Wrenn classifies them in one of eight categories (which he derives from the four categories of declarative, explanatory, extensive, and restrictive).2 Of the twenty-five interpretations, Wrenn concludes that twenty are declarative and retroactive, four are restrictive, one is extensive, and none is explanatory of a doubtful law. I first read this book shortly after its publication, and I recall being impressed by the insightful arguments while often disagreeing with his classifications. In fact, on re-reading this work two decades later, I still find that I can agree, at the most, only with thirteen of the twenty-five and, for reasons to be explained below, I suspect that, after deeper study of the other interpretations, I would disagree with even more of his classifications. Of the twelve categorizations about which we presently disagree, Wrenn believes nine to be declarative3 and three restrictive,4 while I would categorize all twelve as explanatory. In this study, I want to illustrate our different approaches as a basis for developing some guidelines for classifying authentic interpretations of canon law into the four categories of declarative, explanatory, extensive, or restrictive. The questions of interest are: On what basis was the interpretation made? What was the actual doubt that led the Holy See to promulgate an interpretation in this most solemn form, per modum legis? How was the doubt resolved, leading to the authentic interpretation made by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (PCLT)5 and promulgated by decision of the Supreme Pontiff in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis? These questions, to be sure, necessarily involve the application of the standard rules of canonical interpretation, above all the fundamental rule that ecclesiastical laws must be [End Page 606] understood according to the proper meaning of the words in the text and context (c. 17).6

Part I of this study treats the juridical nature of authentic interpretation and the competencies of the PCLT, in particular its role in making authentic interpretations. The second part offers some reflections on the classification of authentic interpretations and two different approaches to discovering the mens legislatoris, which I call the subjective and the objective. In the third part of the study, three authentic interpretations are analyzed from the perspectives of the subjective and objective approaches, each of which yields a different classification.

Although only the canons of the Latin code will be cited, it must be noted that what is said here of authentic interpretation in the Latin church applies equally to the Eastern Catholic churches (CCEO c. 1498 §2). The PCLT has competence to interpret universal laws (leges universales), including the canons in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches and other...

pdf

Share